We think we’ve reached our saturation point. There is a new paranormal TV show on the Travel Channel. The premise is that the general public submits clips of paranormal things caught on camera to the studio. While the viewers watch these clips, alleged ‘professionals of the field’ are edited in giving their opinion of what they think they’re seeing. Sprinkled in are explanations to help the viewers understand each scenario in which the film was captured, as well as some scientific theories or suggestions of possible natural cause comparisons. Our issue is that the show is edited in a fashion where we viewers at home could see a tomato on the screen, and then suddenly there are authorities – who have never seen, eaten, or cared about tomatoes – paid to give us their viewpoint.

When one covers the range of ‘paranormal’, it is recognized to include ghosts, Sasquatch, UFOs, ESP, Loch Ness Monster… things that are beyond the normal realm of scientific reasoning. We think it’s safe to say that while someone has the breadth and depth of experience in one field (or maybe two!), it’s going to be rare that they can form a qualified description about ALL of the paranormal. A well-respected ghost investigator can and should offer us opinions about possible spirits caught on video, but not a radio host who makes their living interviewing interesting people. Hands on experience is always more plausible than third-party rumors.

This show offered us a few recognizable faces, and a few we could not identify. It would have been better if they had alluded from where some of their ‘specialists’ came and gained their expertise. Instead, we are asked to just buy into their theories. We were left listening to some people watching the same videos we were seeing, and then explaining it to us like we were third-graders. If you are not familiar with the possibilities, then yes, you could get some value in having things plotted out one by one. But if you’ve been in this field for a while, it can become repetitious when during each film clip, there are the same 5-7 faces with a judgement about EVERYTHING. Wouldn’t differentiating the speakers to their respective fields personalize the show more for us?

From ghosts moving hotel items, lights in the sky, explosions over the mountains, to Bigfoot climbing a snowy mountain, our crew of experts were there to suggest that these things are abnormal. We know this.

We think the show could have been a little better if there had additionally been some real scientists telling us possible authentic scientific possibilities and explanations – but then it probably would have been on Discovery instead.